"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:48cbdeca@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > And one more thing to say on the subject: Why is it that people think
the
> > ease by which one can commit a cybercrime justifies it?

> I don't think anybody does.

I do think many do.

> > No shop owner is required to keep their
> > wares under lock in all times in order to be able to charge a thief.

> No, but you know what? Their wares usually have somebody standing over
> them to protect them.

No, not really. There's a whole bunch of clothes, shoes, ... etc sitting on
racks on the outside of the store by the door. All the salespeople are
inside and none of them can see the street. They are completely unprotected
and insecure. I think I'll help myself to a new outfit.

> I rather suspect that if you just took some stuff
> and left it unattended in the middle of the street and then tried to
> prosecute the guy who stole it, you wouldn't get very far.

University system is hardly "the middle of the street". It's obviously not
abandoned or refuse. There's no question whatsoever about who owns the
system or the data.

> It's not that you have to make theft "impossible", but you have to make
> *some* kind of effort.

That he used a keylogger means the university did make some kind of an
effort. Any security system can be compromised if you try hard enough. At
worst, you pay $4.95 and a packet of bubble gum to a user (I don't remember
the link now but there was a study on how alarmingly willing employees were
in exposing confidential business information, passwords... etc). But
bribing itself is still a crime, no matter how little of a bribe you were
able to get away with.

Again, the point is, if you break the law, you are a criminal, regardless of
how easy it was to break the law. I can go to a random person on the street
and punch him in the face with no trouble whatsoever. Do you think the
defense that he wasn't wearing a motorcycle helmet will fly in court?

Post a reply to this message